Taxi to and hold short instructions.

[Matthew Jordan 919403]

Is it mandotry to have the hold short when giving a taxi clearance to a runway. For instance XXXX, taxi to and hold short 15, altimeter 2992. I know there's been debate about it in the faa but i never heard the final outcome.

[Richard Green 810012]

I am sure someone will correct me if wrong...

 

But I think the final outcome was:

1. Hold Short is implied when giving the clearance.

2. Airports had to get a waiver to continue using the phrase.

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

I think Richard is correct that it is now implied.

 

I however, still use it as a matter of habit because in theory real world controllers use it as a means of sequencing radio traffic amongst other issues.

 

The actual phrase used here in KC alot is: "Cessna 45R (or whatever), taxi to RWY XX and h/s, contact the tower on xxx.xxx when ready for t/o." This let's the aircaft know when the controller wants him to switch to the tower freq for t/o.

 

Some larger Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airports are different beause they are so busy they usually kick you over to the tower while you're still taxiing to the active and the ground controller want's you off their push/freq so they can move on to the next a/c. DEN is a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ic example that comes to mind recently for me as far as the real world goes. They pushed our UAL a/c over to tower before we even cleared the ramp area.

[Owen Catherwood 903683]

7110.65, 3-7-2-2b

 

When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned takeoff runway and hold short instructions are not issued, specify the runway preceded by "taxi to," and issue taxi instructions if necessary. This authorizes the aircraft to "cross" all runways/taxiways which the taxi route intersects except the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned takeoff runway. This does not authorize the aircraft to "enter" or "cross" the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned takeoff runway at any point.

 

PHRASEOLOGY-

TAXI TO RUNWAY (number) VIA . . ..

 

EXAMPLE-

"Taxi to Runway One Two."

"Taxi to Runway Three Six via Taxiway Echo."

or

"Taxi to Runway Three Six via Echo."

 

I believe the waiver is for position-and-hold.

[Jo Keeler 892070]

7110.65, 3-7-2-2b

 

When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned takeoff runway and hold short instructions are not issued, specify the runway preceded by "taxi to," and issue taxi instructions if necessary. This authorizes the aircraft to "cross" all runways/taxiways which the taxi route intersects except the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned takeoff runway. This does not authorize the aircraft to "enter" or "cross" the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned takeoff runway at any point.

 

PHRASEOLOGY-

TAXI TO RUNWAY (number) VIA . . ..

 

EXAMPLE-

"Taxi to Runway One Two."

"Taxi to Runway Three Six via Taxiway Echo."

or

"Taxi to Runway Three Six via Echo."

 

I believe the waiver is for position-and-hold.

 

Yes, you are correct.

[Thomas Flanary 835147]

The way I hear it all the time, in real life is:

 

"Cessna 38F, Runway 7L Taxi via Charlie Delta, Hold Short Runway 34."

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

It varies from airport to airport, sounds like you got a crossing RWY in there they don't want you cross just yet and also they want you using specific taxi ways for ground flow reasons.

[Javier Larroulet]

That would be a bit different since the hold short is for a runway which is not the one you'll use for departure.

When giving taxi clearances that will cross other runways, it is implied that clearance to cross those runways has been granted unless you specifically instruct otherwise.

On the other hand, just as the guys have said, the hold short at the departure runway is implied and does not need to be said

 

cheers!

[Thomas Flanary 835147]

I skimmed over this post before i wrote it, and yes, it is implied. That's why it didn't even click for me when you mentioned "hold short" b/c the Only hold short you'll ever here is for a crossing runway. (most likely)

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

That's what I was getting at. Even though the rule may now be implied it can still be used depending on the airport and the operations at the airport.

 

Most people read the "bible" and automatically think that it's the gospel when in fact it's the minima and can always be added to so long as you don't take away from it.

 

I highly encourage all to visit their actual airports if they can or listen to actual radio transmissions and see what is really said and how its said.

 

There's nothing wrong with not issuing a h/s, but it can still be very usefull in certain circomestances when not for h/s of another RWY. Also issuing taxi instructions with specific taxiways is not required even though most larger airports use them for obvious reasons.

 

It all comes down to what you want the a/c to do and when you want it done. You can use phraseoligy to train pilots along the way also, to do things your way when done correctly. That's a whole nother can of worms which is definatley not suitable for about 99.9% of FS'ers and controllers, even here on VATSIM.

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

To add what's already been said, when the controller issues a taxi instruction without any hold-short instructions, you would routinely hear;

 

"Nxxx taxi runway 25R via bravo.."

 

But when any type of hold short instruction is necessary;

 

"Nxxx runway 25R, taxi via bravo, hold short C3..."

 

As you notice the phraseology changes as if the departure runway is the first thing they say, it's a cue that a hold short instruction will follow.

 

Please remember, as a pilot you must read-back all hold short instructions.

[Robert Henry 859761]

I skimmed over this post before i wrote it, and yes, it is implied. That's why it didn't even click for me when you mentioned "hold short" b/c the Only hold short you'll ever here is for a crossing runway. (most likely)

 

I forgot to read that back to the tower on a taxi back to 33 at KMTN, at which point I got a stern request to read it back. I'll never forget it again, and they only have one runway. But with 2 A10s on a 6 mile final, I was going to be holding short.

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

Gerry,

 

Just to nit pick here....you guys have got to please leave out the "N"'s when stating registrations/callsigns. They are not used in radio communications in the US...LOL.

 

I have no idea why everyone still does it on VATSIM.

 

You use the full numbers/letters on the first call either by the pilot or the controller, then the last 3 thereafter.

 

While I'm at it for all you pilots...if you've filed in your flight plan info that you're a....let's see...ermm...a Cessna 172...and your registration is for example: N545PR, your first callup would be: "g'day downtown ground (or insert whatever facility there), Cessna (or Skyhawk) 545PR, at Hangar 5, with A, ready to taxi, VFR or departure to the East (or whatever)". Ground will come back then and say "Cessna 5PR, taxi to RWY 19 and h/s, contact the tower on 133.3 when ready for t/o". . And so on and so on.

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

Clarifying for pilots, if you're a Cessna, then say Cessna, if you're a Pilatus, then say Pilatus, not just your N#. Pilatus 545PR or Cessna 545PR, etc.

[Kyle Gibson 937127]

If you are doing hold short instructions it would be like this....N700MS, 15l, taxi is approved, hold short 15r. If it's a normal taxi clearance it's N700Ms, taxi to runway 15l. Correect me if I'm wrong.

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

Not sure about the first one, maybe for somone other than US. Also, leave out the "N" in your radio/voice comms, not sure you're just using it because you're on text in the forums though.

 

Disregard, I completely read over your post. You're asking about H/S's.

 

Just say: "Cessna (insert a/c type) 700MS, taxi to rwy 15L, via B (if applicable), H/S RWY 15R".

[Andras Kiss 888081]

Its actually quite interesting, when I was younger I coulda sworn I heard "November xxxxx" all the time at KMMU, but nowdays you just hear the stuff after the N (Thats how I do it)

 

hmmmm...

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

I'm simply unable to not comment. I haven't cracked open the 7110 in quite a while but unless they've modified it a few things need to be mentioned with respect to it. Of course all below is only within the context of the FAA and operations within the USA.

 

Just say: "Cessna (insert a/c type) 700MS, taxi to rwy 15L, via B (if applicable), H/S RWY 15R".

 

I'll just "nit pick" myself here - that's not the correct format for holding short of a runway other than the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned runway as already stated numerous times. Again, the proper format is:

 

"Runway XX, Taxi/Proceed Via YY, Hold Short of ZZ"

 

Regardless of what happens at this airport or that, the correct phraseology is simply that - the correct phraseology. It's a fall back that never fails - both realistically and legally. Saying "Taxi to runway 15L via Bravo hold short runway 15R" is ambiguous.

 

A pilot could easily mistake this phraseology as "Taxi to runway 15 left and hold short of 15L" which may result in the pilot crossing the runway and causing a problem. If the controller simply used the phraseology as properly stated "Runway 15 left, Taxi via Bravo, hold short runway 15 right" the pilot would immediately know that they have been instructed to hold short of a runway, other than the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned departure runway (which they can never cross or enter without specific permission).

 

It's just common sense. You do make an excellent comment regarding not being bound to the bible, as long as you don't take "away" from it - but if you think about the example I've set above - changing the format of phraseology does indeed "take away". The same could be said of the "order" in which you specify information during a takeoff clearance, an IFR clearance, any vertical or lateral vectors, or an approach clearance.

 

I can't imagine how messed up the pilots would be if they were out of the blue issued "cleared for the VOR 13 left approach, 8 miles from asalt, cross canarsie at 3000, fly heading 310".

 

My point is simply that just because they don't do it by the book at Podunk airport or even at NY Approach - doesn't make it correct. Does anyone actually think that the phraseology contained in the 7110.65 wasn't just thrown together by a few guys who though it "sounded cool"? One would imagine that the phraseology is the result of years of experience, collaboration, and the analysis of poorly phrased instructions that have led to accidents, many of them fatal.

 

From a controller's perspective, if they stray too far from the .65's path and accidentally issue you ambiguous instructions because they thought it sounded "better", and these instructions led to an injury or death - couldn't they could be held legally responsible?

 

N700MS, 15l, taxi is approved, hold short 15r. Correect me if I'm wrong.

 

As far as I know the word "approved" isn't mentioned anywhere in the FAA's ground movement phraseology. I believe this is for the same reason that we don't say "Cleared" in conjunction with any ground movements as it may be misunderstood as a takeoff/landing clearance. Again, this is why there is a standard phraseology for takeoffs and landings. I've often seen this "Taxi Approved" phraseology around VATSIM and I'm pretty sure it's a result of the old VATUSA (actually this stuff was so old it was SATUSA) training material. Don't get me wrong, that material was fantastic and the author (why can't I remember his name) has a drink on me if we ever meet, because these "lessons" helped form the early foundations of my ATC knowledge. However, there were some errors in these study guides, and as a result a few of these still exist on Vatsim today (and are probably p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed on to new students).

 

You use the full numbers/letters on the first call either by the pilot or the controller, then the last 3 thereafter.

 

Actually, unless I'm mistaken - if you don't initiate the contact yourself, the controller is required to identify you by your full registration number, including the "N" upon initial communication.

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

Ian,

 

Yes, you are correct when there is a H/S implied, I got toungue tied while trying to keep my train of thought on the other point I was trying to make. Good catch!

 

And no you do not say the "N" in the number at all. The pilot is required to know what his aircraft type is. The controller merely uses the aircraft type IF known and the full number and/or letters without the "N", or simply states "unidentified aircraft, (location)....this is 'so and so'....". Maybe that's changed also since I've only been getting a few hours a year, but I highly doubt it.

 

As far as the bible goes, yes, you should use that and learn that first....I say again first, before anything else, I was merely stating that's its just starting point, however my main point was something else entirely. The post has gotten so long now, I can't remember what the other points were. I think I stated that we should not go into that for the very same reason you just brought up. We're going to have people on the far right and left of the actual message I was trying to get accross and it's going to get taken way out of context.

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

Now I see what my problem was....we went from 1 RWY to 2 RWY's and I was still on the aircraft indentification point not realising I didn't correctly phrase the parallel properly. Sorry about that.

 

In any case, I'm not talking about re-shuffling the order of the words either by any means nor would I encourage anyone to use any non standard phraseology either. I think I was refering to not having to issue a H/S OR using a H/S for a single RWY to help faciiliate where and when you wanted an aircraft to switch freqs if needed. There was no re-shuffling anywhere there.

 

Now to be clear you do not have to issue the H/S if you dont want to. I think that's the best thing so as not to confuse people any further.

 

I was really afraid someone such as yourself would get the wrong idea there. I should have not posted that what so ever. I can clearly see that this is not the place for these kinds of discussions and I'll refrain from them in the future.

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

I was really afraid someone such as yourself would get the wrong idea there. I should have not posted that what so ever. I can clearly see that this is not the place for these kinds of discussions and I'll refrain from them in the future.

 

Jeff - it's all good brother - it's all good!

 

I'm just an armchair pilot/controller anyhow - what do I know?

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

Haha, you know not to translate my [Mod - lovely stuff]py writing style, that's for sure...rofl. Now you see why I'll never be in the traning academy!

 

BTW, I noticed you are from Canada? Been itching to do a flight up there, maybe tonights the night!

[James McMannamy]

Regarding the N#/aircraft type thing:

 

The controller will say either the make, model, or registration prefix. For a P28A N30378 the callsign will always start with "Cherokee" or "Piper" or "November": ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming comms have already been established)--> "Cherokee 378, runway 17R, hold short runway 26" or "November 378, taxi to runway 35L" (7110.65 2-4-9 "Use the Identification Prefix and the last three digits of the aircraft identification after communications have been established." The identification prefix for US registered aircraft is either "November" or the the make or model of the aircraft).

 

If a real world controller calls the aircraft above simply "378" without the "November" or "Cherokee" or "Piper" or some other identifying prefix, that controller is not using proper phraseology whether he does it all the time or not.

 

As far as using "Cessna" or "Skyhawk" or "Cherokee" over "November", in my experience flying regularly, if I call myself "November ____", the controller will call me "November ____", while if I call myself "Warrior" or "Cherokee", the controller will call me "Warrior" or "Cherokee"

 

 

Jim McMannamy

[Jeff Nielson 839877]

Pretty much correct there Jim, except if a controller is calling you "N" first it's because you probably did it yourself first and he wants to maintain consistency to ensure he's got the right aircraft, not because it's your reg number. It would probably or should be corrected in subsequent comms or asked by the controller to have the pilot/you clarify if he or she is able to do so.

 

The first call by either the controller or the pilot should be "Piper30378", then subsequently just the "Piper378".

 

Also yes, alot of times real world controller and pilots shorten it even more and jsut use the last 3, especially when there's alot of traffic on the air even though it's not correct per say to do so.

 

A good example of bad comms is in that King Air video where they do the flight from the Denver area to TEX. The pilot I think just uses the last 2...lol.

 

Anyways, there's a ton of examples out there, and it very well may technically correct to use the N# even though it's taught to everyone to not do that. I'd have to pull out my old books and actually see.

 

Comms has always been a hot issue with just about everyone, and everyone certainly has an opnion on it.

[Chris Gauthier 895085]

You use the full numbers/letters on the first call either by the pilot or the controller, then the last 3 thereafter.

 

Almost correct. An aircraft is required to use their full callsign (sans the leading "N") when talking to ATC, UNLESS ATC shortens their callsign FIRST. Then, the aircraft MAY use the shorter callsign, but is not required. The first radio call by ATC to an aircraft must include their full callsign and may be shortened to the last 3 characters in subsequent transmissions.

 

Example:

8154N: "Salem Ground, Cherokee 8154N, South Ramp, Taxi for departure with Golf."

SLE_TWR: "Cherokee 8154N, Salem Tower, Taxi to Runway 31 via Charlie, Hold short Runway 34, landing traffic."

8154N: "8154N, taxi to Runway 31 via Charlie, hold short 34"

SLE_TWR: "Cherokee 54N, Cross Runway 34, taxi to Runway 31"

8154N: "54N, Cross Runway 34, taxi to Runway 31"

 

This is nearly verbatim from an actual conversation I have with the local tower when I fly (real-life).